.	UN Declarations of Rights neeeds  Declarations for Use
UN is get caught in a tradition of mastering the macro level by solemn declarations backed up by military force	When the newborn UN pronounced the Declarations of Rights it had a high credibility because there existed a brutal enemy with an evil ideology that denied the rights of the others. The correspondence between the verbal declarations and their implementation action in war was good. After the triumph of justice in World War II Declarations of Rights were, however, adopted as standard vocabulary by all combatants. None denied  the rights of the others in their ideology; all wars start nowadays allegedly in defence of "rights". The result is that the mighty nations or a legally defined majority in the UN (General Assembly and  the Security Council in complicated interaction) usurp the prerogative of interpreting which are the "true" rights. They also make attempts to mediate in this climate of mutual claims of righteousness but, righteous  mediators soon become prosecutors and trigger-happy enforcers -- if the intervention is in their own self-interest.  The UN seems to be incapable of bridging the cleft between abstract declarations and concrete actions. But where can such a bridging find starting points that would combine the declared equity for the conflicting parties with mutual understanding? As the custom is now, the judgments which party is the weakest and needs help, are made quickly but the clumsiness in which this help is executed is understood only later and after some years is liable to be repeated at some other time or place. At the present time the world has doubts regarding firm and solemn declarations but is mesmerized by interventions carried out by those who have military power and vested interest in the conflict. On the other hand, powerlessness is no guarantee for building peace in the minds of men. One might ask how do the institution where all the citizens in the world get their first behavior patterns -- the school -- deals with this relationship between words and deeds?  Let us take a look at how schools handle group bullying because in the group dynamics here  we discover some conflict structures that suggest a possible new deal for methods of mediation.
	Dealing with group bullying in school follows the example  of UN
He who has eyes to see, can appreciate the structural similarity between the UN and a school class (Like  master like man.)	When discussing group bullying with a school class everyone agrees that group bullying (mobbing) is bad and that the bullies -- dealt with as a concept -- are to be condemned. Even those students who themselves are suspected of group bullying join in making firm declarations against bullying. They seldom do it because of sheer hypocrisy; they do not consider themselves as bad members of a bad group but just defenders of the rights of their group against intruders or believe that they are executors of punishments towards a disloyal member. The main difference is the advantage the school has in its simpler administrative routines and verifiablility in conflict cases where the teacher is present in person. When a teacher happens to see actual bullying there is no doubt of guilt (and no need of declarations); you first intervene with appropriate force and follow up with reconciliation later. The UN-type of problems in school start when bullying is reported as taking place behind the backs of the teachers. The teachers start -- like the UN -- with spreading enlightenment and  making declarations. The result is also the same: only those  who are sensitive are reached.  Then the teachers try the next UN device: interrogations of the parties, sometimes called mediation. Since  the mediation culture is not as well developed as the declaration-of-rights culture the results are mixed. Sometimes the real culprits are identified, sometimes the action is of benefit to the friends of the intervener and the oppressed party broods on revenge. Despite our knowing that pronouncing guilt seldom succeeds in eliminating the problem we still repeat the role of a judge. It inflames for our feeling of importance. Is there a way out of the perpetual game? Yes, there is -- if you cultivate the mediation culture so well that the role of the powerful judge is eliminated and the skills to find shared concern and shared solutions are brought forward in mediation training. This happens in the Shared Concern method -- the theme of this home page.  But can the Shared Concern approach, that originated in tackling group bullying in schools, be transferred to the international level where the UN is expected to handle?
	Here is a  story about a photograph that may open up  an understanding of the relationshship between leaders and peoples
The group picture of world leaders reminds of a picture of a school class	There are those who see immediately the same psychological patterns between tackling of group bullying in a school class and creating the defense of peace in the minds of men at the international level. But there are those who cannot see such a relationship. The story is for them.. In the year 2000 the world leaders were gathered for the Millennium Summit at UN headquarters. A group picture was taken and distributed to the world press. "They remind me of a school class" said my wife next morning and some hours later my dentist made the same remark. I started to show other people the picture asking "What do you think?" Not only was the similarity of the reactions  amazing;  so  also were the spontaneous comments that followed: "·and here is the school master" they saif and pointed out Kofi Annan. "Here are the important boys in the class" they stated focussing on Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Jaques Chirac. "And here is Yasser Arafat" whose headgear in rows further back was easily identifiable.
An  intimate conversation of two UN officials snapped up without their knowing: "UN is a Paper Tiger." "True, but it is the only UN we have got."  "Yes, UN is the only Paper Tiger we have got."	"But where is Göran Persson?" My Swedish friends looked for their own Prime Minister. They found with the help of a map with enumerated profiles of the figures on the group photograph that UN had distributed with the picture. Interestingly enough, many of the identification numbers were put on the wrong profiles where they belonged to the representatives of smaller states. This mess was explained in my newspaper. The arrangers of the group picture had fixed places for everyone beforehandbut the statesmen shuffled themselves about like school kids probably trying to find better positions. It is evident that many of The World Leaders in this photographing situation recalled the memories from their school years as the readers of the newspapers did when watching the picture. Was this a micro-level or a macro-level event?
Here is one of the insights that bridges between the levels	Political theory would probably call taking a class photography picture of the Mighty Leaders just a piquat event of  or label it with some highbrow disdain as "private" or "subjective" events at "micro level". For a psychological explanation of how the world is governed it contains something more. It makes evident that as the people and their leaders have similar experiences and motives deciding their reactions in similar situations, we discover psychological laws that govern us all.  When we discover the behavior elements that the Leaders and their Masses have in common we begin to see the causes of the failures in which they are enmeshed. And, if we are constructive in our analysis, something still more important occurs: we get hints how the Organization that all people in the planet have in common may step down from the declaration-and sanction addiction when their mediators encountering conflicts.
Is the breeding of declarations in UN a "macro level" action?	Is the preparatory work to get declarations adopted by the General Assembly a macro-work?  When we analyze the chain of events before a resolution is adopted we abandon our illusion that the declarations, so imposing in their language and so overwhelming in their ambitions, are a product of discussions in the assembly. Far from it, the resolutions are anticipations by the Secretary General and his staff who are working in human micro relationships. They find out by trial and error what the majority of the member states would accept. The representatives of the states may work themselves up in some particular question and thereby contribute to the impression of "vivid debate", but it is clear to everybody who has been close to the UN work debates that without the preparatory micro-level-work in the corridors and cafeterias no resolution would ever pass. And then, when the unobjectionable but insipid resolution is solemnly taken an ambivalent state of matter occurs. The  resolution is on one hand loaded with Belief like a religious dogm; on the other hand all diplomats and common sense people together know that the declarations remain empty unless actions are stated.  But he actions they know are inprints from the birth of the UN: the good guys' war against the bad guys.
	Conclusion: Declarations need to be operationalized by exemplifying peaceful practice of mediation methods
New tool: an archetype	This home page is, hopefully, one of the many examples that endeavor to make conflict resolution effective by means of a mediation technique that originally was and still remains based upon the solemn declarations of the UN on equal rights. I have  as a peace educator in three decades in trial-and-error experiments been working on the contradictions that the declarations lead to. Its final product, releasing of the "from shared-concern to shared-solution"-archetype is a tool more vigorous than  than the declarative devices used by a certain old UN organization especially created to build the defense of peace in the minds of men. "But there are very decisive differences between international negotiations and mediation used in group bullying in schools·"
Objection 1: Dependency on home opinion	Here is a serious objection against bridging between micro and macro levels: the team that is sent from one country to negotiate with the other country is dependent on home opinion that usually demands the highest possible concessions from the other side. In contrast to the international negotiation teams a bully group and the victim represent only themselves. Certainly, the  dependence of the international negotiations on the home opinion is very important but observe, it is not decisive if you know by practical experience  "what makes it tick" in a shared-concern type of mediation.  First of all, one must differentiate between "negotiation" and "mediation". The first word is associated with  "bargaining", the other word has wider and deeper connotations. What is the additional meaning imbedded in "mediation"? I would say: the warm concern in the mediator and his skill  in reinforcing  the tiniest suggestions to a solution that could be shared between the parties. My imaginary opponent says now: "But even the most skillful mediator meets the obstruction of the home extremists" and brings forward the Palestine-Israel case that right now and usually is the actual case.
Extremists are fighting for honuor expressed in symbols	True, I admit. One should have respect for the extremists at both sides. But fighting them with police forces is not the kind of "respect" I am talking about. You observe that the extremists are deeply involved in symbols. Never violate their symbols!!  The mediator who does not respect the feelings of  extremists bound to symbols is an unskilled mediator!  It is not my mission here to point out the actual symbols. I think that all people who have the faintest knowledge of Jewish, Christian and Islamic history can tell.  However, this answer is not satisfying my imaginary opponent who points out another difference: "You cannot split an international negotiation team like you split a group of bullies in the school. They would simply not admit private talks with the negotiator. The other members and home opinion would suspect the individual members of being treacherous."
Carter had long separate talks	All what my opponent says is true but does not decisively  exclude the idea of private and separate talks that precede the summit meeting. Jimmy Carter employed successfully this device when making peace between Israel and Egypt. He met Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin privately and, as far I can judge from Carterâs personality he was a patient listener and could create a relaxed atmosphere in Camp David. Bill Clinton who tried the role of mediator started with asking the Israel-Palestine negotion teams to meet at his place. (September 2000) When I am writing this, in November 4, I hear from the newsreel that Carter has taken them to separate talks.  What remais is that Clinton would apply the rest of the practice of the shared solution archetype.
What is mediation centered Peace Education?	"The extremists on both sides would not allow this" my opponent says and I agree. Then I ask: why not have a remedial program for the extremists? Why not begin with a peace education that is not focussed on declaring and demanding "rights" but on finding shared solutions?
Can you find an UN-official who is not distressed when you start talking about a certain archtype	"How can you educate for peace in Palestine-Israel where kalashnikovs, sold by international weapon dealers, are pointing at each other, when there are systems in the world that earn dirty money from the weakness of human beings, for example producing TV-films with violence as the main attraction intruding the living rooms in industrialized countries?  How do you do talk peace with poor peasants in underdeveloped countries ·?!" My  friend, who has a high rank in the international bureaucracy, ended his long list of obstacles because he suddenly reminded himself that he should be working on a memorandum for an international meeting.
A short course in therapeutic mediation for UN officials in Geneva                 Pictures from a videofilm used as feedback in role-plays	What is your alternative? I still tried and the busy administrator answered in a hurry: "Jurisdiction based on declarations", but  admitted that we could try a peace education centered around shared concern as a unifying idea. We agreed to meet again when he had more time....                                      * * * The Shared Concern method, SCm, is presented as a  contribution to all who operationalize the UN ideals in encounters where  both parties claim their rights but have some potential to discover that  their opponent has the entitlement to rights. Probably SCm is not going to be used straight away by the present representatives of Power but it may serve as a start which has the quality needed for all starts: one understandable sentence you always can return to when going astray trying to amalgamate various guidelines and one's own field experiences
	Wanted: a technique to transform non-shared concern into shared concern When reading the speeches of the World Leaders, available on the Internet  (www.un.org  Press release GA/9753) we can reconstruct three areas where shared concern was expressed. Pollution. This is the most univocally shared concern; the measures taken are insufficient. Poverty. An implied dialogue has arrived at a crazy standstill.   Poor countries torich countries: "You must help us to reach the standard of living you have!" Rich countries: "We are concerned that if you do so the global pollution would be lethal to us all."  Poor countries: "The rich countries pollute most." Both: "We  must produce more in order to afford a sustainable environment." (A self-deceptive conclusion: "Produce more scrap to get less scrap.") Aggression. Those who are involved: "The other party is attacking  us!" Those not involved: "We may be underdeveloped in mediation skills but right now we have other things to do." If you possess a remedy for one of the above mentioned three areas then you just start with that area. Parallel problem solving can and should proceed without competing priorities between these three areas; saying that one of them  has to be accomplished before we can move to the next is a counter-productive pretext.  I will present in this home page a mediation technique to deal with some types of aggression and, its counterpart, withdrawal. I am, with kindest regards, leaving the other areas to those who feel competent to deal with them.